Brief Summary
Alright guys, in this video, we're diving deep into the Supreme Court of India. We'll be covering everything from how judges are appointed to their qualifications and removal process. Plus, we'll look at the interesting dynamics between the judiciary and the executive, especially concerning the appointment of judges. Key takeaways include understanding the integrated judicial system in India, the evolution of the collegium system, and the powers and limitations of the Supreme Court.
- Integrated judicial system
- Evolution of the collegium system
- Powers and limitations of the Supreme Court
Integrated vs. Dual Judiciary Systems
So, let's kick things off by understanding the difference between the judicial systems in the US and India. India follows an integrated judicial system where the subordinate courts, high courts, and the Supreme Court are all part of the same structure. This means that the same set of courts can enforce both central and state laws. Unlike the US, where federal courts handle federal laws and state courts handle state laws, in India, you can challenge a law passed by a state government in the Supreme Court. This unified structure was adopted from the Government of India Act 1935.
Establishment and Constitutional Provisions
The Supreme Court of India was established on January 28, 1950, succeeding the Federal Court of India. The constitutional provisions for the Supreme Court are detailed in Articles 124 to 147 under Part Five of the Constitution. These articles cover the organization, independence, powers, jurisdiction, and functions of the Supreme Court. Interestingly, while the judiciary is separate, the power to regulate its functions lies with the Parliament, including the ability to increase or decrease the number of judges. Currently, there are 34 judges, including the Chief Justice of India, though initially, there were only eight.
Appointment of Judges and the Collegium System
Now, let's talk about how judges are appointed. The President of India appoints Supreme Court judges after consulting with the Chief Justice of India. This consultation process has been a point of contention, leading to the evolution of the collegium system. Currently, the collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most judges, who recommend names for appointment. The President then appoints the judges based on these recommendations.
Evolution of the Judges Cases
The interpretation of "consultation" has been the subject of several landmark cases. In the First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, 1981), the court held that consultation did not mean concurrence, giving the executive more power. However, in the Second Judges Case (1993), the court reversed its decision, stating that consultation meant concurrence, making the CJI's advice binding on the President. This case led to the formation of the collegium system. The Third Judges Case (1998) further expanded the collegium to include the CJI and four senior-most judges, solidifying the collegium's role in judicial appointments.
Criticisms of the Collegium System
The collegium system has faced criticism for lacking transparency, being biased, and promoting nepotism. Critics argue that it gives the judiciary too much power in appointing its own members, violating the principle of separation of powers. Some even say that India is a country where judges appoint judges.
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)
To address these issues, the government introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to replace the collegium. The NJAC aimed to bring more transparency and executive involvement in judicial appointments. The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act was passed to establish the NJAC, but the Supreme Court struck it down in 2015, deeming it unconstitutional and a violation of the judiciary's independence, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. As a result, the collegium system continues to be in place.
Appointment of the Chief Justice of India (CJI)
The appointment of the Chief Justice of India follows a convention where the senior-most judge is appointed as the CJI. While this isn't written in the Constitution, it's a practice that has generally been followed. However, there have been instances where this convention was broken, such as in 1973 and 1977, during Indira Gandhi's tenure, when judges were superseded. The Second Judges Case in 1993 reinforced the convention, stating that the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court should always be appointed as the CJI, limiting the government's discretion.
Qualifications for Judges
To become a Supreme Court judge, one must be an Indian citizen with legal experience. This includes practicing in a High Court for 10 years or being a High Court judge for 5 years. There's no minimum age requirement, but the maximum age is 65 years. Additionally, the President can appoint a distinguished jurist as a judge. There's no fixed tenure, and judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the integrity of the nation.
Removal of Judges
Judges can be removed from office for proven misbehavior or incapacity. The process involves a resolution passed by either 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha. The presiding officer can either admit or refuse the motion. If admitted, a three-member committee is formed to investigate the charges. The committee includes the Chief Justice or a judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. If the committee finds the judge guilty, a special majority (2/3 of the members present and voting) in both houses of Parliament is required to pass the resolution, after which the President can remove the judge. As of now, no judge has been removed through this process.
Acting and Ad-hoc Judges
In situations where the Chief Justice of India is absent or unable to perform their duties, the President can appoint an acting Chief Justice. Additionally, if there aren't enough permanent judges to conduct the court's business, the CJI can appoint ad-hoc judges from High Courts, after consulting with the Chief Justice of the High Court and obtaining the President's consent. These ad-hoc judges must be qualified to be Supreme Court judges and prioritize Supreme Court duties.
Retired Judges
The Chief Justice of India can also request retired judges from the Supreme Court or High Courts to serve temporarily. However, this requires the consent of both the President and the retired judge. These retired judges receive allowances as determined by the President and have the same jurisdiction, powers, and privileges as regular Supreme Court judges, but they aren't considered permanent judges.
Seat of the Supreme Court and Advisory Jurisdiction
While the seat of the Supreme Court is in Delhi, the Chief Justice of India, with the President's approval, can establish seats in other locations. This is optional and not mandatory. The Supreme Court has the power to frame its own rules and procedures. Under Article 143, the President can seek the Supreme Court's opinion on matters of public importance, known as a Presidential Reference. Constitutional cases and Presidential References are heard by a minimum of five judges.
Article 142 and Complete Justice
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to use its discretion to ensure complete justice in extraordinary situations, even if it means going beyond existing rules and regulations.
